Tenochtitlan Capital of the Aztec Empire

Tenochtitlan Ancient Cities of the New World

    Florida A&M University University,, Tallahassee Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Florida Gulf Coast Coa st University, Ft. Ft. Myers Florida International University, Miami Florida State University University,, Tallahassee New College of Florida, Sarasota University of Central Florida, Orlando University of Florida, Gainesville University of North Florida, Jacksonville University of South Florida, Florida , Tampa Tampa University of West Florida, Pensacola

Tenochtitlan Ancient Cities of the New World

    Florida A&M University University,, Tallahassee Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Florida Gulf Coast Coa st University, Ft. Ft. Myers Florida International University, Miami Florida State University University,, Tallahassee New College of Florida, Sarasota University of Central Florida, Orlando University of Florida, Gainesville University of North Florida, Jacksonville University of South Florida, Florida , Tampa Tampa University of West Florida, Pensacola

This page intentionally left blank

Tenochtitlan Capital of the Aztec Empire

    Foreword by Michael E. Smith, Marilyn A. A . Masson, and John W. Janusek Janusek

University Press of Florida Gainesville · Tallahassee · Tampa · Boca B oca Raton R aton Pensacola · Orlando · Miami · Jacksonville · Ft. Myers · Sarasota

Copyright �� by José Luis de Rojas y Gutiérrez de Gandarilla All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. is book is printed on Glatfelter Natures Book, a paper certified under the standards of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). It is a recycled stock that contains �� percent post-consumer waste and is acid-free. is book may be available in an electronic edition. ��

� � � � � �

A record of cataloging-in-publication data is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN ��-�-��-��-� (alk. paper)

e University Press of Florida is the scholarly publishing agency for the State University System of Florida, comprising Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International Uni versity, Florida State University, New College of Florida, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, University of North Florida, University of South Florida, and University of West Florida. University Press of Florida �� Northwest ��th Street Gainesville, FL ��-�� http://www.upf.com

Contents

List of Figures

vii

List of Text Boxes

ix

List of Tables

xi

Foreword �. Mesoamerica: A Constellation of Cities

xiii �

�. e Mexicas’ Search for a Home

��

�. e Rise and Fall of the Mexica Capital

��

�. e Construction of a Metropolis

��

�. A Visit to Tenochtitlan

��

�. Supply and Distribution

��

�. e Activities of the Tenochca

��

�. e Life of the Tenochca

��

�. Tenochtitlan: Capital of an Empire

��

��. From Tenochtitlan to Mexico City

��

Glossary of Nahuatl Terms

��

References

��

Index

��


Figures

�.�. e Basin of Mexico � �.�. e Tenochtitlan causeways �� .�. e exit from Aztlan in the Codex Boturini �� .�. e founding of Tenochtitlan in the Codex Mendoza �� .�. e pyramid of Tenayuca �� .�. Acamapichtli, Codex Mendoza �� .�. e Mexica lords in the Primeros Memoriales of Sahagún �� .�. e Mexica lords in the Florentine Codex �� .�. Conquests by Itzcoatl �� .�. Conquests by Motecuhzoma I �� .�. e Stone of Tizoc �� .�. e sun disk in the upper part of the Stone of Tizoc �� .�. Genealogy of the Aztec lords �� .�. Public works, Codex Mendoza �� .�. Map of Tenochtitlan by Hernán Cortés, sixteenth century �� .�. e calpulli of Tenochtitlan �� .�. e Great Temple of Tenochtitlan depicted by the Anonymous Conqueror, sixteenth century �� .�. e sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan �� .�. e Calendar Stone �� .�. Coatlicue �� .�. Detail of the Stone of Tizoc �� .�. Coyolxauhqui �� .�. Reconstruction of the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan �� .�. e Palace of Motecuhzoma, Codex Mendoza �� .�. Tribute from Quautitlan, Codex Mendoza ��

viii · Figures

�.�. Bearers ( tlameme), Codex Mendoza �� .�. A girl learning the art of weaving, Codex Mendoza �� .�. Metalworkers, Florentine Codex �� .�. Boys learning crafts, Codex Mendoza �� .�. e petlacalcatl , Codex Mendoza �� .�. Punishment of boys and girls, Codex Mendoza �� .�. A boy learning an office, Codex Mendoza �� .�. A girl learning her duty, Codex Mendoza �� .�. A small ballgame court at Cantona (Puebla) �� .�. Gods playing the ballgame, Codex Nuttall �� .�. e game of patolli, Florentine Codex �� .�. Extent of the Aztec Empire �� .�. Conquests of Axayacatl �� .�. e conquests of Motecuhzoma II �� .�. Tribute in maize �� .�. Tribute in amaranth �� .�. Tribute in chía �� .�. Tribute in beans ��

Text Boxes

�.�. e Templo Mayor Precinct �� .�. Francisco Javier Clavijero Describes the Templo Mayor �� .�. Fray Diego Durán Describes the Tzompantli �� .�. e Mexica Calendar �� .�. A Meal in the Moctezuma’s Palace �� .�. Hernán Cortés Describes the Tenochtitlan Market �� .�. Products Sold in the Market �� .�. Torquemada Describes the Weavers �� .�. e Skill of Metalworkers �� .�. e Structure of Mexica Administration �� .�. Funerary Ceremonies �� .�. A Wedding Day �� .�. e Months of the Xiuhpohualli (the Calendar of �� Days) �� .�. Tribute from the Provinces ��


Tables

�.�. Disposition of chinampa surplus �� .�. Estimates of workers in Tenochtitlan by occupation ��


Foreword

e Aztec imperial capital Tenochtitlan was one of the great cities of the ancient world. It was the largest city in the New World prior to the coming of European invaders in the sixteenth century, and—as capital of an extensive empire—one of the most powerful cities. Tenochtitlan also has the privilege of being the most extensively described of the ancient cities of the New World. Conquerors like Cortés and Díaz del Castillo wrote vivid descriptions of the bustling metropolis. en, as Tenochtitlan was transformed into Mexico City after its conquest, many other writers recorded information about the city in ancient times. In recent decades, one of the largest excavation programs in Mexican history has uncovered the central temple of Tenochtitlan and its surrounding area, adding much new archaeological data. Given the significance of the city and its rich historical and archaeological documentation, it is surprising that Tenochtitlan has received so little coverage in English-language sources. Happily, the present volume rectifies the situation. José Luis de Rojas, an ethnohistorian at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spain, is one of world’s leading scholars of the Aztec capital. In this book he uses his extensive knowledge of historical sources to bring the city and its residents to life. We are shown the people of Tenochtitlan in countless fascinating settings, from elaborate public pageants where images of gods are carried through the streets to the houses that were settings for daily life. Farmers, merchants, priests, and kings find their stories in these pages. Tenochtitlan had the problems and logistical requirements of a major premodern urban center. Where did the food come from? How did a city on an island in a salty lake get its drinking water? Dr. Rojas answers these and numerous other questions in authoritative and vivid prose. is book is the second in the series Ancient Cities of the New World. Books in this series provide accessible portrayals of urban patterns in places where publication has not kept up with fieldwork and archival research. While the study of any past urban center can claim to be about ancient cities or urbanism, this book series features studies

xiv · Foreword

that employ specific theories, models, and approaches drawn from the scholarly literature on cities and urbanism. Volumes in this series will complement introductory textbooks as in-depth, theoretically driven case studies of urbanism in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and South America. Michael E. Smith, Marilyn A. Masson, and John W. Janusek Series Editors

1 Mesoamerica A Constellation of Cities

One of the most frequently cited passages about the conquest of Mexico is chronicler Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s description of the awe the conquerors felt when they first saw the Valley of Mexico: Gazing on such wonderful sights, we did not know what to say, or whether what appeared before us was real, for on one side, on the land, there were great cities, and in the lake ever so many more. (Díaz del Castillo ��, ��) During the colonial period of Mexico’s history and after, Mexico City expanded to absorb all of the “great cities” Bernal Díaz saw. e study of the antiquity of that urban tradition is the work of archaeologists. Mesoamerica is a land of cities, some of which are very large. is characteristic is extremely important for the study of the region’s social, political, and economic history. Some of the city-states of Mesoamerica were large, some were medium-sized, and others were small (see Smith ��). Among the largest cities, some have been well known for quite some time, such as Teotihuacan. Others, such as Cantona (Puebla), are just now gaining notoriety outside academic circles. Still others, such as Tula, the capital of the Toltec empire, are the subject of ongoing debates. However, one stands above all others for its size and scope: MexicoTenochtitlan. Tenochtitlan is unique among the pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican cities because a large corpus of documents have survived that describe it, which makes it possible to know and deeply understand the size, function, and meaning of the city. is is a good thing for our knowledge of Tenochtitlan itself, but it is also useful for other places.

� · Tenochtitlan

e more we know about Tenochtitlan, the more accurately we will be able to interpret other archaeological remains in the region. us, when we study Tenochtitlan, we are not just studying the capital; we are also studying urbanism, politics, economics, religion, and so forth in Mesoamerica, deep in time. Much information is available that allows us to study the expansion, organization, and religious life of Tenochtitlan; the size of the population and the various activities people engaged in to support themselves; and the construction and demise of an empire. Tenochtitlan was as great as any city in the world of its time. And it was Mesoamerican in culture, which means that it was linked to many other cities and shared many traits with them. When the Aztecs came to the Valley of Mexico, they found an already developed society. ey succeeded in becoming part of that society and then reaching the highest position in its hierarchy. is success story is linked to the founding and development of the great city of Tenochtitlan, and this book deals mainly with the history of how that happened. e Sources of Our Knowledge

One of the main reasons we lack vital information about Tenochtitlan in pre-Hispanic times is that the Spaniards converted it into a colonial capital. e city grew considerably after the Spaniards arrived, first as a colonial center, then as an independent capital, and then during the second half of the twentieth century. is explosive development has occurred on top of the ancient remains, making both large- and smallscale archaeological excavations difficult. Even when such studies are possible, their progress is often hampered by conflicts of interest. Colonial buildings are historic landmarks that cannot be destroyed in order to unearth the remains beneath them. Occasionally some remains can be recovered, as occurred when the metro train system was constructed, and in some cases what is found can be preserved. But only rarely has it been possible to undertake a large-scale excavation that offers us a glimpse of ancient Tenochtitlan. Mexico City’s pre-Hispanic monuments are few, and each one is thus extremely important. Before �� the list of important but unexcavated remains included the Tena yuca pyramid, the ruins at Santa Cecilia Acatitlan, Cerro de la Estrella

Mesoamérica: A Constellation of Cities · �

(Hill of the Star), the temple at the Pino Suárez metro station, and the Templo Mayor of Tlatelolco, which for many years was the most spectacular of the monuments. Only the Pino Suárez altar is located within the limits of the pre-Hispanic city of Tenochtitlan. Many exceptional circumstances had to occur for the situation to change. In fact, a presidential decision was necessary to overcome all of the obstacles to new archeological research. It wasn’t until �� that Mexico-Tenochtitlan’s Great Temple (Templo Mayor), located between the National Palace and the Metropolitan Cathedral near the Zócalo (Main Square), could finally be excavated. e discovery of a circular monolith representing the deity Coyolxauhqui was the catalyst for the research. Fittingly, the stone now occupies an important place in the museum built at the Templo Mayor. Investigations continue, and many mysteries have yet to be solved. However, the excavation at the Templo Mayor has provided the largest amount of material to date about the Mexica, as well as some surprises. Related to this project are the excavations carried out during the ��s to define the foundation of the temple (Matos, Hinojosa, and Barrera ��). If hardly any remains have been preserved, how can we know about Tenochtitlan’s appearance and structure? ree routes remain open to investigators, each of which has advantages and drawbacks. Colonial-Era Documents e first source of information is colonial-era documents, mainly from the early years when vestiges of the past still existed. ese vestiges were typically located outside the ceremonial enclosure. In addition, following orders from Cortés, the colonial city was built using the existing buildings, streets, canals, plazas, and markets of Tenochtitlan. e organization was basically the same as that of pre-Hispanic times, and as a result we have a considerable amount of precise information about the operation of the city from Spanish chroniclers such as Cervantes de Salazar (��). is is both a blessing and a curse: some things remained the same while others changed considerably, and it is necessary to determine which is which. Researchers who argue that the changes were drastic and almost immediate after the Spanish conquest will find this information to be of little use. But for those of us who maintain that most things changed quite slowly, these sources are quite useful.

� · Tenochtitlan

ese documents include blueprints of houses that have been analyzed by Calnek (��, ��) and Alcántara (��) as well as descriptions of life in the city. Ancient Descriptions of Tenochtitlan e second source of information is accounts of the pre-Hispanic world written after the conquest. A number of writers offer descriptions of the city and its buildings and operation. For example, the Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagún describes the seventy-eight buildings around the Templo Mayor (��; [��] ��, Appendix II). e Dominican friar Diego Durán describes the temples in his work on religion (Durán ��), and he describes the palaces, streets, and plazas in his Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e islas de Tierra Firme (Durán ��). Here the problem is determining how knowledgeable these writers really were. Most had not actually witnessed what they described. eir information came from what they saw after the conquest, from what older indigenous people had told them, or from what was written in historical texts—that is, when it didn’t come from their imagination, as Durán suggests it did sometimes. Indeed, some, such as the Conquistador Anónimo (Anonymous Conqueror), had very vivid imaginations. Two exceptions were Hernán Cortés and Bernal Díaz del Castillo. However, Graulich has recently argued that Díaz del Castillo didn’t witness the events he recounts at Tenochtitlan because he lived in the garrison at Villa Rica, Veracruz, the entire time he was in Mexico (Graulich ��; see also Rojas ��). Cortés is the only one who wrote while the events he described were actually taking place, when the final outcome of his campaign was still unknown. His description of the city—recorded while the campaign was still under way—is invaluable in this aspect. However, we should still corroborate the validity of his statements with archaeological data. Many of the other chroniclers who wrote about Tenochtitlan did not see it right after the conquest. Some of them lived in Mexico several decades after that time, and some of them, like Fray Juan de Torquemada, repeated the words others had written. But sometimes these “amplifiers” did a very good job and their descriptions are very beautiful. So we prefer quoting their words to those of their more terse predecessors.


Maps and Illustrations e third dataset consists of images. ese include ancient maps, more or less imaginative images like those published in Cortés’s Cartas de relación de la Conquista de México ([��–��] ��; ��) or the Uppsala Map (Toussaint, Gómez de Orozco, and Fernández [��] ��). In addition, we have works produced by painters and engravers. Again, we must consider whether the mapmakers were preserving what they saw, copying or interpreting texts; reusing images to illustrate books (which happened very frequently), or simply projecting their imaginations (Sebastián ��). While we are on the topic of imagination, we should also consider how researchers decide which materials to use and which geographically or temporally distinct groups to use in comparisons. Researchers use their vital knowledge and experience to fill in holes in information and tie together existing data in order to develop a plausible theory. ese are the reeds we have with which to weave our basket. ey are rather few and far between. Some are more trustworthy than others, and which ones we select depends on many factors. However, with this data we can offer a glimpse of life in pre-Hispanic Tenochtitlan and the role it played during its time. Clarification of the Terminology

e empire whose capital was Tenochtitlan has traditionally been referred to as the Aztec Empire. However, I prefer Barlow’s term Culhua-Mexica Empire (��). e word Aztec refers to the groups that left Aztlan, a place of origin whose location is still unknown. Different groups left from this place, including the Xochimilca, the Chalca, the Culhua, the Mexica, and so forth. e term Mexica refers to the followers of Huitzilopochtli, the god of war, sun, and human sacrifice. ese are the people who settled in the Valley of Mexico and founded cities such as Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan. In addition, the word Tenochca refers to the inhabitants of the city Tenochtitlan. As will be demonstrated in this book, Tenochtitlan was a cosmopolitan city that welcomed immigrants from many places. us, some Tenochca were not Mexica and not even Aztec, as occurs in modern cities.

� · Tenochtitlan

It is not always easy to distinguish Tenochca from Mexica or Mexica from Aztec when referring to the city or the empire. But we must always try to do so. It’s quite possible that our categories don’t agree with the ones used in ancient times and that we may often focus on aspects that were not significant in those times. Objectives of is Book I will explain what we know about Tenochtitlan and suggest what we believe when there is no documentation on the topic. Most of the information comes from ancient chronicles and documents. Not many books or articles are specifically about Tenochtitlan (Rojas ��; Matos Moctezuma ��; Calnek ��a, ��b, ��, ��, ��). e exception is the literature on the Templo Mayor excavations. Although the literature on this topic has grown rapidly in light of new archaeological work, it covers only a small portion of ancient Tenochtitlan. ough there are many useful general books on the Aztecs (Berdan ��; Bray ��; Carrasco and Sessions ��, Clendinen ��; Smith ��; Soustelle ��; and Vaillant ��), most do not differentiate between rural and urban people in the Aztec world, and I will not quote them every time. is book is closely connected to another title published in this series, Aztec City-State Capitals (Smith ��). e first part of this book is dedicated to the founding and growth of Tenochtitlan and the Culhua-Mexica Empire. e second part deals with the physical features of the city and the urban network of supplies and distribution. e third part explains the public and private activities of the Tenochca, and the fourth part examines relations between Tenochtitlan and the Aztec Empire and offers a brief comment about the destiny of Tenochtitlan after the Spanish conquest. e quotations from the ancient chronicles have been selected primarily from Spanish-language editions. With the help of Kristin Sulli van, Michael E. Smith, and Cynthia Carvajal, I have been able to select published English versions of most of the quotations. When this was not possible, the translation was done by Kristin Sullivan.


e Valley of Mexico: Nature and Culture

A popular Mexican song says that “Mexico [is] in a lagoon.” is was the case before the lakes were drained and when the famous raised fields of Xochimilco to the south still existed. e Valley of Mexico is more than �,�� meters (�,�� feet) above sea level. It included five lakes surrounded by mountains: Xaltocan, Zumpango, Texcoco, Chalco, and Xochimilco (see Figure �.�). With the help of a dike, Lake Texcoco was split in two in the fifteenth century: Lake Mexico to the west and Lake Texcoco to the east. Neither was very deep (only ca. � meters [�� feet] at the deepest point), and Lake Texcoco consisted of brackish water not suitable for human consumption. In fact, the division was in part an attempt “to desalinate” the water from Lake Mexico by isolating it from the salty water of Lake Texcoco. e basin was surrounded by mountains to the east, south, and west. e highest peaks are found to the east: the Popocatepetl (�,�� meters, or ��,�� feet) and Iztaccihuatl (�,�� meters, or ��,�� feet) volcanoes, which are nearly always covered with snow. e mountains formed an enclosed area where water accumulated in the center. e basin was fed by some perennial rivers, including Tlalnepantla, Azcapotzalco, Guadalupe, and Teotihuacan. Seasonal rivers and rain, which is more abundant in the south (�,�� millimeters, or ��.�� inches per year) and less so in the north (�� millimeters, or ��.�� inches per year), also played a part. Several volcanic eruptions affected the valley and helped determine its appearance. e Xitle volcano stands out because at the beginning of our era its eruption buried the city of Cuicuilco to the south of the valley, near the present location of University City (UNAM). Volcanic eruptions weren’t the only danger presented by nature; people also faced the problem of recurring floods. In fact, the maintenance of the Huehuetoca canal located in the north of the valley was an issue that worried the viceroy of New Spain for decades; the canal generated more expenses than profits. Of the �,�� square kilometers (or ca. �,�� square miles) that make up the valley, the lakes accounted for only about �,�� square kilometers (or ca. �� square miles). However, their influence on life was considerably greater than the percentage of surface area they occupied.

� · Tenochtitlan

Fig. �.�. e Basin of Mexico. After Sanders, Parsons, and Santley (��, Map �). Drawing by the author. Formerly published in Rojas (��, ��).

Because of the variations in altitude, the flora of the region were di verse. Coniferous forests (pine, Mexican weeping pine, ponderosa pine) grew on the highest slopes. Evergreens and oaks, so useful in building the city, predominated at lower altitudes. At still lower altitudes, the plains were planted with crops. Willow, Moctezuma cypress, and ash grew along the edges of rivers and lakes. All of this was complemented


by dense aquatic vegetation that included rushes, grass, reeds, and water lilies. In the drier north, agave and mesquite proliferated. e fauna also varied by habitat. In the forests there were deer, coyotes, spotted cats (ocelots), and rabbits that were targeted by hunters. However, what stand out the most are the lacustrine fauna: fish, frogs, snakes, larvae, mosquitoes, and a great variety of aquatic birds, including ducks and herons. All were important elements of the diet of the valley’s inhabitants. Among the resources the lakes provided was the important nutrient-rich algae that grew in Lake Texcoco. It was called tecuitlatl in Nahuatl, and today we know it as spirulina. A small amount of this food consumed daily provided all of the essential amino acids for human life, compensating for any deficiencies in diet (Santley and Rose ��, ��–��). Among the plants used as food the most important were corn, beans, pumpkins, different varieties of chili peppers, tomatoes, chía, green amaranth, and fruits such as cherries, avocados, Mexican hawthorns, and sapodilla. Different areas were set aside for cultivation as the need arose. In addition to dry land and irrigated land on the plains, terraces were also constructed for growing corn on slopes that were up to �,�� meters above sea level (��,�� feet). However, cultivation using chinampas (raised fields) was one of the main agricultural practices (Armillas ��). ese fields have often been called “floating gardens,” although they were actually anchored to the ground. ey were essentially land recovered from the lakes by piling various layers of mud in the shallow lake beds and securing the new land to trees, mostly Moctezuma cypress. e result was high productivity coupled with the possibility of obtaining several harvests of different products every year. Irrigation was facilitated by canals between the chinampas. e recovery of mud from the lake bed simultaneously fulfilled two functions: fertilizing the land and cleaning the canals. Enhanced productivity was obtained by sowing seeds early; only the plants that germinated were transplanted to the chinampas. Productivity was also enhanced by sowing two crops together in the same bed, such as corn and beans, which not only maximized the amount of land available but increased the yield from both products (Ramos, Hernández Xolocotzi, and Kohashi ��). ese practices also meant that the amount of available land was effectively multiplied. is ability to maximize agricultural

Fig. �.�. e Tenochtitlan causeways. After Sanders, Parsons, and Santley (��, Map ��). Drawing by the author. From Rojas (��, ��).

Mesoamérica: A Constellation of Cities · ��

land was one factor that enabled the great concentration of population in the Valley of Mexico. Cultural Antecedents

e founding and settlement of cities in the Valley of Mexico dates to antiquity. e resource-rich lake edges were occupied in the Formative period, especially at centers such as Cuicuilco and Copilco. e Classic period was dominated by the influence of Teotihuacan, located in a nearby valley. After Teotihuacan fell, the Toltecs rose to prominence, although the exact location of the Toltec capital is not clear. During the last sixty years it has been identified as the archaeological site of Tula de Allende in Hidalgo state, some �� kilometers (��.�� miles) north of Mexico. Recently, however, opposing viewpoints have been presented by investigators such as Stuart (��, ��) and myself (see Rojas ��), who postulate that Teotihuacan is a strong candidate for the Toltec capital. Smith and Montiel (��, ��–��; see also Smith ��, ��) state that Tula does not seem to have been the capital of an empire but was a very important town with great influence in Mesoamerica. What is certain is that the greatest Toltec influence that we know of is located in the Valley of Mexico, quite far from the supposed capital. e occupation of the region was not interrupted as much after the fall of Tula and during the Classic period as it was in the Early Postclassic. is period is when we begin to see places that would later play an important role in the history of Tenochtitlan and are sometimes called “Epigonal Toltecs,” or heirs of the Toltecs. ese include Azcapotzalco, Colhuacan, Coyoacan, Iztapalapa, Texcoco, Huitzilopochco, and Tena yuca. Many of them are today districts of Mexico City (see Figure �.�; Smith ��). In their time, each played a part in the history of the Mexica. ey are towns on the edge of the lake in which Tenochtitlan was founded, and their legitimization can indeed be traced to the Toltecs. Sanders, Parsons, and Santley (��) describe in detail the evolution of the occupation of the valley, which they illustrate with several maps. e edges of the lakes were occupied by cities of different sizes. Some of them grew into small empires like that of the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco. Others, like Texcoco and Colhuacan, formed important dominions whose past was linked to mythical settlers. e lakes served an important role in canoe transportation in addition to providing different

�� · Tenochtitlan

resources. Over time, they were transected by roads that converged on the central island where Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan flourished. Both Aztec cities shared an ancestral home for decades, in a particular type of coexistence that maddens the investigators who cannot avoid the problem of understanding this relation. e growth of the two Aztec cities brought modifications to the lake system. is was particularly so with the rise of Tenochtitlan, which became a great center of consumption and the place to which all roads led. e increase in the surface area of the chinampas was tied to the increase in the nutritional demands of the new capital. e need to control the waters inspired the construction of dike-roadways that allowed travelers to walk along roads while also permitting canoe travel on the water. ese were covered with planks for pedestrians, and the ability to remove them converted the communication system into a defensive one. Nezahualcoyotl’s dike to the east of Tenochtitlan also separated the waters of Lake Mexico from those of Lake Texcoco, although some authors question the existence of this wall (Armillas ��). For those who believe it existed, it appears to have been the main reason for the separation of Lake Mexico from that of Texcoco. ese waters were filled with canoes that continually transported goods between the city and the mainland. We assume that, as in colonial times, there would have been some way to regulate canoe traffic so as to avoid chaos on the lakes. Palerm (��) has studied this traffic control system.

2 The Mexicas’ Search for a Home

One of the great successes of the Mexica has been the importance that we, as investigators, have given the interpretation of the past they bequeathed. When they came into power, they rewrote history, and theirs is generally the version we have followed. An oft-repeated passage tells of Tlacaelel, who was second in command after the victorious Itzcoatl, burning the codices after the Mexicas defeated Azcapotzalco “because many lies were told in them.” e Mexica then rewrote history so that they were the chosen people who rose from obscurity, wandered until they reached their promised land, and fulfilled their fate of dominating the world. is idea is present in most Aztec histories. Belgian investigator Michel Graulich (personal communication) has extended this idea; he postulates that each tlahtoani (ruler) reinterpreted history so that it logically led to his own leadership, an argument I find convincing. is practice can also be connected to the behavior of many indigenous lords in New Spain who fought to justify their position in the social structure. And perhaps it may be linked to the ancient Mesoamerican habit of expanding temples by building over existing ones. is is good for archaeologists now, and it was good for ancient rulers because after the new construction, their people saw only their own exploits. e Mexica implemented this strategy at the Templo Mayor. e official version of Mexica history begins with the Mexicas’ migration from a mythical place and their arrival many years later in the already-occupied valley. Our knowledge of what happened relies on the stories the Mexica themselves told. A detailed account of this period may be found in Davies (��a, ��b).


e Mexicas’ Version of History

e word Aztec means “inhabitant of Aztlan.” Aztlan is an island located in the middle of a lake in a place that is still unknown. It is the origin place for diverse groups who emerged before the Mexica (see Figure �.�). Nearly all of them settled in the Valley of Mexico. us, the arrival of our protagonists in the same area was a sort of reunion with their former neighbors. is is important to Mexica mythology because it demonstrates both the fulfillment of the destiny of Huitzilopochtli’s followers and the importance of the Mexica in events. In this version of history, the focus is not on the fact that they were the last to leave Aztlan. Rather, what the Mexica emphasize is that they sent the other groups ahead of them so that when they arrived in the Valley of Mexico they simply assumed their rightful place. One of the more famous accounts of the migration appears in the Boturini Codex, which is often referred to as the Tira de la Peregrinación (e Strip Showing the Travels). is codex narrates the exodus of the preceding groups, followed by exodus of the Mexica. e Mexica left with four priests carrying the sacred bundle portraying Huitzilopochtli, their patron god. ey wandered through various areas, staying different lengths of time in each, sometimes as long as twenty years. When they stopped, they built temples and planted maize and beans. e migration began in the year � Flint (A.D. ��), according to the most accepted chronology. Various divisive episodes occurred during the migration. e first incident happened at the very beginning, when a tree under which the Mexica sought shelter broke in two. Huitzilopochtli told them that the group must also be divided in two and that only the most virtuous would continue with him. e second incident is narrated by Friar Diego Durán (��, chap. �). He explains that the reason for the antagonism between the Mexica and the principal contemporary empire, the Purépecha (or Tarascans) of Michoacán, was that they came from the same ancestors. According to the story, as the Mexica stood near Lake Patzcuaro, Huitzilopochtli ordered some of them to bathe themselves. While they were bathing, he ordered those who remained on land to remove the clothes of the group that had entered the water. ose without clothes were thus shamed and became the Purépecha. ose who

e Mexicas’ Search for a Home · ��

Fig. �.�. e exit from Aztlan in the Codex Boturini. Drawing by the author.

left with Huitzilopochtli became the Mexica, who were the enemies of the Tarascans after that time. As it turns out, the origin of the Malinalca would be more important. Huitzilopochtli had a very beautiful sister named Malinalxochitl. However, she had become a sorceress and had caused considerable harm to the group. e priests asked Huitzilopochtli for advice, and he ordered them to leave her and her followers in the night. So while Malinalxochitl and her followers slept, the Mexica left for Tula, stopping first at Coatepec. When Malinalxochitl and the others awoke, they could not figure out where the others had gone and decided to found the city of Malinalco. Even today there is an interesting temple carved into the rock at this location. Malinalxochitl had a son named Copil who played a decisive role in the foundation of Tenochtitlan, as we will see later. Coatepec is also an important place because it is the setting for one of the fundamental Mexica myths: the birth of Huitzilopochtli. Friar Bernardino de Sahagún tells us that Coatlicue, the earth goddess, was sweeping the temple when she found a ball of feathers. She held it close to her womb, and miraculously she became pregnant. is angered the children she already had: a girl named Coyolxauhqui and innumerable


sons, known as the Centzon Huitznahua. ey wanted to kill Coatlicue, and she fled to Mt. Coatepec with her sons in pursuit. During this time, Huitzilopochtli spoke to his mother while in her womb and calmed her, and one of her innumerable sons told him where their pursuers were. When the innumerable sons reached the top of the mountain and prepared to exact their revenge, Huitzilopochtli was born fully armed with the xiuhcoatl , or fire serpent, and killed them all. Coyolxauhqui was completely dismembered when she rolled down the mountain. e different characters represent the earth (Coatlicue), the sun (Huitzilopochtli), the moon (Coyolxauhqui), and the stars (Centzon Huitznahua). us, the myth dramatizes the triumph of the sun over the moon and stars when it rises each day. All of these elements, as we shall see, are represented at the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. e next important phase of the migration occurred at Chapultepec, along the western edge of Lake Texcoco. e Mexica were not welcome there, a situation that Friar Diego Durán (��, chap. �) blames on Copil’s attempts to avenge his mother, Malinalxochitl. He conspired with the inhabitants of Azcapotzalco, Tlacopan, Coyoacan, Xochimilco, Culhuacan, and Chalco against the Mexica and then withdrew to the hill of Tezcotzinco on a large island in the lake. ese allies attacked the Mexica, but the Mexica managed to escape and take refuge in Atlacuihuayan, known today as Tacubaya, another town on the western edge of the lake. Meanwhile, Huitzilopochtli had already alerted his priests , and an expedition that had been sent ahead before the siege took Copil by surprise and killed him. e priests removed his heart and their god ordered that a priest stand in the reeds and throw it with all his might. A prickly pear cactus would sprout from the heart, and in that place the Mexica would build their city. ey would recognize the site because an eagle clutching a serpent would be perched on the prickly pear cactus. is image is the glyph for Tenochtitlan (see Figure �.�). But that was still a few years away. Looking for another place to stay, the Mexica asked Achitometl, the lord of Culhuacan, to allocate a place for them. He met with his council and conveyed the request. However, the request was not received favorably because the Mexica had not gained the respect of the inhabitants in the towns they had stayed in. Achitometl decided to offer the Mexica Tizaapan, a place that had been deserted because it was infested with poisonous snakes. e Mexica were at first unhappy when they arrived at the site, but

Fig. �.�. e founding of Tenochtitlan in the Codex Mendoza, f.�r (Berdan and Anawalt ��, �:�). Courtesy of Frances F. Berdan.


they soon discovered the advantage: they ate the serpents. ose in Culhuacan awaited the demise of the Mexica, and after some time had passed, they went to see how they were. ey found highly cultivated fields, well-built huts, and a temple dedicated to the Mexica god. Taking advantage of their confusion, the Mexica requested permission to enter the city of Culhuacan to do business and asked permission to marry people from that city. ey were granted all they asked because of the fear they instilled in Achitometl and his people. e Founding of Tenochtitlan Another episode from this period provides us with a clear image of the qualities of the Mexica. Under the command of Culhuacan, they took part in a war against Xochimilco. To ensure that their accomplishments would be recognized later, they cut off an ear from each prisoner and saved it. us, when the prisoners were counted and their capturers were identified, they could demonstrate in a barbaric yet unmistakable way who they had captured (Berlin-Neubart and Barlow ��, ��). But the insatiable Huitzilopochtli was not yet finished. He ordered the Mexica to ask Achitometl for one of his daughters, who would become a Mexica lady and the wife of their god. Achitometl agreed and gave his daughter to the Mexica and was in turn invited to the marriage ceremony. He arrived accompanied by his chief advisors, bearing many gifts. He was invited to climb the temple where his daughter had already been married to their god. As he approached he discovered the truth: she had been sacrificed and skinned, and a priest was dressed in her skin. He flew into a rage and he and his people attacked the Mexica, who once again were forced to flee. ey headed toward the lake and came ashore at Iztapalapa. ere, Huitzilopochtli consoled them and ordered his priests to look for the prickly pear cactus and build a temple in his honor. ey followed the order and found the place on an island in the middle of the lake where Azcapotzalco, Texcoco, and Culhuacan converged. And thus Tenochtitlan was founded as “the place of the wild prickly pear cactus” in the year � House (A.D. ��), according to the accepted accounts. As I have already mentioned, there is a discrepancy between what the Mexica sources tell us and what other sources, including those based on archaeology, argue. e place was not deserted but rather was a subject town of Azcapotzalco known as Tlatelolco (Barlow ��, �; González


Rul ��; Obregón ��, ��; Santamarina ��, ��–��). Researchers have given less attention to Tlatelolco, the “twin in the shade,” than to Tenochtitlan (Bueno ��), and indeed it was overshadowed (and ultimately conquered) by its neighbor. Texcoco and Other Cities In the early times of the Mexica there appeared other places and other lords that I have not mentioned in this brief summary. e primary role the Mexica play in their own histories has eclipsed the geopolitical reality, turning the true protagonists into little more than “extras” and the small group of Mexica nomads into the heroes of the story (see Rojas ��). However, as we have seen, the Valley of Mexico had been populated for some time, and the existing cities played an important part throughout Mexica history. After the fall of Tula, cities flourished throughout the valley. ese cities included Azcapotzalco, Culhuacan, and Tenayuca, legacies of the Toltecs. People from the north, the Chichimecs, began to arrive. ey were hunters and gatherers who underwent an acculturation process that allowed them to become true Mesoamericans. One of the most famous figures among them was Xolotl, whose history is told in the Codex Xolotl (Dibble ��) and by chroniclers such as Ixtlilxochitl (��–��). Xolotl arrived in A.D. �� (Bernal ��, ��) and settled in Tenayuca, where there was a pyramid that had been expanded several times using the typical Mesoamerican technique of building new structures over a previous building. In each of its stages, the pyramid was topped with twin temples, characteristic of those built by the Aztecs. One of them was dedicated to Tlaloc and the other to Tezcatlipoca, and the pyramid was surrounded by serpents (see Figure �.�). Xolotl was succeeded by his son, Nopaltzin, who died in A.D. ��. He in turn was succeeded by his son Quinatzin, founder of Texcoco and its Chichimec dynasty (León-Portilla ��, ��). A member of that dynasty, Nezahualcoyotl, would later play an important role in the fifteenth century; he was the Mexicas’ main ally against Azcapotzalco and one of the founders of the Triple Alliance. Culhuacan had been occupied by the Toltecs, who arrived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. e Culhua dynasty laid claim to the legitimization of the Toltec empire, and the Mexica went to Culhuacan to request lordship, as we will see in the next chapter. us,


Fig. �.�. e pyramid of Tenayuca. Photo by the author.

the Culhua-Mexica inherited the right to rule the legendary imperial capital. Another important place was Coatlichan, located along the edge of the lake. e lord of this place was Acolmiztli. e city lost its hegemony as a result of attacks by Huexotla and Texcoco. Life in the valley was far from calm. e predominant power in the fourteenth century was the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco; two lords of this group, Acolnahuacatl (��–��) and Tezozomoc (��–��), governed for more than a century. ese two rulers built an empire that dominated all of the Valley of Mexico and some places outside the valley. ey became the dynastic reference for everyone else in the complex system of marriage alliances that predominated in Mesoamerica. ey can also serve as a reference for us, since the Mexica later followed their model of domination (Santamarina ��). Not surprisingly, the Mexica, having just settled in their newly established city, found themselves under Azcapotzalco’s power. e Mexica helped the Tepanecs fight their frequent wars and tried to marry into the Azcapotzalco elite. Since resources on the island, especially building materials, were scarce, the Mexicas had to look for ways to support themselves, which they did by trading


lacustrine products and serving as mercenaries. e latter played an important role in their future. e first steps for the inhabitants of newly founded Tenochtitlan in volved improving their standing within the Tepanec empire—that is, until they eventually defied the Tepanecs, having gained enough power to do so. e Mexica’s early times in the Valley of Mexico were characterized by a real struggle to become Mesoamericans and then to improve their place in the Mesoamerican world. Regarding the form and extent of the city at that time, we only know that they built a temple to Huitzilopochtli made of perishable materials.

3 The Rise and Fall of the Mexica Capital

e early years were difficult. e houses were mere huts, and the temple for Huitzilopochtli was made of perishable materials. e Mexica had to accumulate resources, and lake-based activities were one means of doing so. At the same time, they continued using chinampas to reclaim land from the water and make expansion possible. We do not know the size of the population at this point. Some have argued for ��,�� people at the time of the exodus from Aztlan and about ��,�� when Tenochtitlan was founded (León-Portilla ��, ��–��). Both numbers seem very high for a nomadic group and pose serious logistical problems in terms of the migration and later settlements. e sources all mention that the people were organized in calpulli, a structure identified with a conical clan, although the term evolved over time to acquire a different meaning. For Tenochtitlan, the most important structural unit was the “neighborhood” (Spanish barrio), in which people lived in the same place without necessarily being related or practicing the same occupation. ere were seven calpulli at the start of the migration and fifteen when Tenochtitlan was founded. We do not know how the new groups were formed, although the most likely scenario is that groups began to split off as they grew. Each calpulli had a leader. Above him, at the head of the hierarchy, was a superior council composed of four priests who carried the god Huitzilopochtli. According to these accounts, a lord or supreme head of state did not exist among the Mexica. However, as we have seen, such leaders did exist in the cities that had already been established at the time the Mexica migrated. e head of state may be an element they acquired when arrived in the valley, or perhaps the status of the Mexica in the valley was not great enough for them to merit their own lord. If the latter were the case, obtaining a lord would be a sign of prosperity. us, their persistence in obtaining the best lord possible,

e Rise and Fall of the Mexica Capital · ��

not just any lord, should not seem strange. To do this, they had to belong to prestigious lineages as descendants of the Toltecs or descendants of the lord of Azcapotzalco, the most important city of the time. Tenochtitlan under the Control of Azcapotzalco

What we have managed to understand of the political organization of central Mexico in the Postclassic indicates that there was a pyramidal system of domination in which the lord of a particular city—in this case, Azcapotzalco—was in charge of the lords of other towns. ese other lords were related to each other through intermarriage with the families of leaders from important cities—Culhuacan, Coatlichan, Iztapalapa, Huitzilopochco. us, a father-in-law, brother, son, or grandson of the supreme Mexica lord would govern subject places. e practice of polygamy allowed the establishment of a considerable network of similar relations both in the Valley of Mexico and outside it. In addition, each of these lords had a similar system with his subjects. e subjects might also, if they had the required status, reproduce the system on their lower level. Understanding this system is important for understanding why the Mexica made their request for a lord not to the lord of Azcapotzalco but to the lord of its dependent, Culhuacan. At this time, the status of the Mexica was very low despite their presentation of themselves as the “chosen ones.” e Mexica called their lord tlahtoani (“leader” or “ruler”), although it is possible they did not deserve this rank at this time. e election of the lord appears in various sources. ese texts vary somewhat, particularly concerning the role of the woman Ilancueitl, who appears as the mother or wife of Acamapichtli, the chosen man. Acamapichtli, who was of the Culhua lineage, began to govern Tenochtitlan and married the daughters of the leaders of the calpulli to establish a Mexica aristocracy (see Rounds ��). us, power relations within Mexica society changed, no longer moving upward from the lowest ranks to cal pulli lord but instead descending from the supreme lord to the calpulli lords. e Mexica, who were now called Tenochca, now formed part of the prevailing system of domination. e new lord established his own network with his subjects. Significantly, the principal wives, who were destined to produce heirs,came not from the new lord’s network but from the superior system, as did the new governor. is contradicts

Tenochtitlan Capital of the Aztec Empire

Recommend Documents